Creation/evolution3

[Norman Humann]

OK.

First off, I understand not wanting to call anyone out, but by doing that you just repeated your assertion that no one is addressing your points without providing evidence.

Post 445 is another example of me knocking down a strawman. line by line. This thread is full of these examples.

You just repeated that we are using the strawman fallacy without pointing out where it was used.

Because in 2/3's of my posts i spend the majority of my time addressing strawmen and their specifics. I did not know I needed to point them out to you.

Second, I don't see how anyone here is intellectually lazy, since most of us are actually trying to understand your points and make our own.

This is not true. Post 445 is a great example of my answer to an atheist changing what I said to make his points valid.

(We would be intellectually lazy if we just took everything we heard for granted, in which case we would not be having this discussion.

Yes that is indeed one form of intelectual laziness. another is not addressing the points of a topic because one does not have an answer to give on the specifics of a given topic, but rather change the topic just enough to make old arguements work, or they introduce a red herring to change the topic. (much like your efforts have been centered around)

Post 445:

---

I can provide an adequate synopsis of your position, if you need one Drich.

On the issue of monkey men with souls, genesis, and evolution, you've offered the extrabiblical claim that you can squeeze all of -whatever- into the time between the end of creation and the fall.

Again your mixing two things. the first is theexegetical statement that their is no time line between the last day of creation and the fall of man. Without a doubt in any bible there is no date. This has been proven several different times to you.

Second thing. Man, a Man, Adam was different than ALL Other creatures in that God breathed into Him a Living soul. This was unique to Adam and his children and their children.

IF
It is your belief that man existed outside of the garden the bible does not deny you this belief. In fact it supports it as it speaks of cities and of people not listed in the garden account. However as per genesis 2 these 'men did not have souls as ADAM was the only one who did.

So to recap: Monkey men/Evolved man/ Man who lived out side the garden did not have a soul. Adam did per The Creation account.

-You actually can't, I've demonstrated why, and offered you a means of demonstrating or falsifying your own claim by biblical reference.

No I have several times, you just keep asking the same questions over pertending I did not say what I did.

You ran off to some bullshit about exodus and dropped the monkey man song and dance.

We are discussing exodus because a question was ask. That's what I do here I answer questions.

You do not have question you make strawmen and want me to defend what you think I should say.

As regards exodus, you've given a contra-biblical, falsifiable, and..conveniently, falsified excuse as to why no evidence has been found rather than simply say "Bible says that nothing wore out because magic".

Nope try again sport. This is exactly what I mean by you creating strawmen. A link I posted showed the scripture that said their clothing did not wear out, everything being discussed clothing never came up. You all want to see camp fires, poop, bones, dead people, tents and pottery Again aside from the dead all of that would have been repurposed. The dead one dried out their bones would have been gathered and treked to the promise land like moses was!

-Unfortunately, you've been called out on that at length, but here were are, up to date.

Yes I've been called out many many times but each and every time the out callings have been shot down. How? Because they are almost always based on logical fallacy/false repersentation of my position.

What does it say about your arguement if you have to lie about what I've said for arguement to make sense?

You've clearly shown that you can support what you believe, but in doing so you've shown what you'll accept as support for what you believe.

Actually I can not support what you believe I believe. In the very beginning of your last post you wanted to provide a synopsis. YOU FAILED To do That! So then how can you tell me I can't support what I believe if you don't even have an elementry grasp of it?

That "support" is extra-biblical, contra-biblical, non-factual, logically invalid...and, frankly....ridiculous bullshit of the very lowest order even without mentioning any of the former. Allow me to suggest that if -this- is what satisfies you as far as support for a belief...then you require none at all -in actuality-. That it might be prudent, since each piece of "support" provides a means to demonstrably falsify your beliefs, that your beliefs would be better served if you stopped attempting to support them at all. Your "ministry" here is chipping away at what little credibility anyone might have afforded it even if only on the grounds of earnestness. You've convinced me, for example, that not only are your beliefs demonstrably and factually wrong...but that you don't actually believe them as you claim to, and that you certainly aren't interested in these beliefs you claim at all.... - and that takes quite a bit. Is that what you're shooting for, is this the goal? If not, you might want to rethink your method, eh?

these are the ranting of the self diluted.

Show me line by line proof. Show me the first place you had a proper understanding of what has been discussed and show me where you accuratly refuted what was said.

Each and every instance you change the subject of discussion just enough so your sweeping generalization seem to apply.

Take your sweeping generalizations off the table and what do you have left? Absolutly nothing. You want to be the heavy hitter here, but you will not put in the work or effort.

So me that I am wrong show me by truly restating me arguement. Show me your not the lazy pretender you seem to be and I will put in the time to straighten out what ever you like no matter how long it takes (lord willing I have the time.)

---

In which you do what you're doing now - claiming that we are using the strawman fallacy without pointing out how. Bolding mine.

Third, I see you're still holding a grudge for the spelling thing.

So?

You literally just took the first sentence of my point.

In that situation there is little to do but point out the spelling mistakes. It's not a personal attack, the mistakes make your posts less clear.

And being on the topic, you could at least admit to some of them, which you didn't.

You don't understand how this whole dsylexica thing works do you? My mind literally auto corrects, and I do not see it the mispellings unless a word is way off. Otherwise there is nothing to admit to, because there is nothing wrong that I can see. I would have to go letter by letter with the correct spelling along side to see and make those changes.

My dad is dyslexic, so I would say I have a pretty good understanding of "how this whole dsylexica thing works".

And, just like the spelling, your formatting is making your posts very hard to read. Please fix it.

out of 48 pages 3 maybe 4 indivisual posts had formatting issues.

To cite your own words, "so"?

Those who can do
Those who can't only teach
Those who can't teach grade papers. you are little more than a paper grader, as nothing we have discussed has had anything to do with what is topically being discussed.

I agree this has nothing to do with the topic. I don't see any point in wasting my time, since I know you will reply saying exactly the same things you have already said.